Gay Patriot Header Image

From the comments: What we must acknowledge about the left

In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.”  I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.

Commenter Eddie Swaim observed:

While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.

Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.

I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012.  Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.  For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below.  Hawkins writes that:

1) Most liberals are hateful people.

2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.

3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.

4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.

5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.

Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation.  There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.

Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention.  The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.  True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article.  Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language.  Read the comments there and see for yourself.

Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective.  The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.

Share

67 Comments

  1. I don’t think we disagree, Peter…my quote simply points out that we’re not allowed to criticize so-called “progressives,” because they occupy such a lofty moral perch that disagreement with them makes us conservative/libertarian types, by definition, evil.

    And as much as I love Ayn Rand, I’ve never seen that particular quote before, but it’s a good one!

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — July 14, 2013 @ 8:02 pm - July 14, 2013

  2. […] they can continue to profit from racial demagoguery. In one of the comments on my last post, our regular commenter Heliotrope provided a skillful analysis of Al Sharpton’s statement about…, relating it back to Alinsky’s rules.  Heliotrope observes: Libtards lust for power in […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The Zimmerman Verdict and Obama — July 14, 2013 @ 9:17 pm - July 14, 2013

  3. Peter Hughes,

    I read Bastiat Fan as being in accord with and supporting you.

    Bastiat Fan,

    I am glad to be introduces with the Voltaire quote. Thanks.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 14, 2013 @ 11:02 pm - July 14, 2013

  4. Being a gamer, most of my counterparts are very liberal. I was accused of being a racist by one of them, because I believed there was insuficient evidence to provide reasonable doubt. I then asked her why she hated Hispancis, since, clearly by her standards, it was the only reason she supported the prosecution. That set her sputtering.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 15, 2013 @ 7:49 am - July 15, 2013

  5. My apologies if it appears that I misinterpreted Bas’s quote, but I don’t see the relevancy of limiting discourse if it is “defined” by one side.

    However, I am glad that we all see eye-to-eye on this issue. The moral problem with libtards is just that – they have NO morals to speak of.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 15, 2013 @ 1:27 pm - July 15, 2013

  6. Hi Kurt,
    I would like to address your original post, if I may.

    “Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation. There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.”

    I read the article that you based your post on, as you suggested your readers do, and I agree–it is quite hyperbolic. But what I don’t get is that you appear to be enamoured with an “article” that shows the very rhetorical and argumentative excesses of which you disapprove in those on the Left Wing.

    One example of this rhetorical excess: “4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.” The strategy is to offer an example or two, then generalize to “MOST.”I can grant “some” or “many”, but “most”? The article does not prove that case, but it does speak to the beliefs of those who agree with its claims.

    The “argument” Mr. Hawkins makes also fails for another reasons:

    Assume that conservative critics are correct about DDT, liberals supported this policy in 1972, and then did nothing to change it when it became clear that the costs of banning DDT were greater than letting people use it.

    Aside from the fact that the person in charge of this effort was appointed by Nixon during his Republican administration which banned DDT use, the question I want to ask is: If Mr. Hawkins is right that “[c]onservatives would be happy to reverse that ban,” why didn’t conservatives reverse the ban when they have had the opportunities to do so, say in 1981, or 1991, or 2001? I have read that some limited action was taken in 2006 by USAID (but not by the Federal Government as a whole). Conservatives would, according to Mr. Hawkins’ “logic” be equally as culpable as liberals in this situation, having failed to “reverse this ban” for 34+ years.

    Given the argumentative style of Mr. Hawkins, one could “argue” that he could just as easily said: “4. Most conservatives don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.” It is a claim as hyperbolic and unsubstantiated as Mr. Hawkins’ original claim, that you base much of your post on.

    Comment by Passing By — July 15, 2013 @ 4:07 pm - July 15, 2013

  7. Passing By: I don’t have time to write a full response at the moment, but I’d say some of this has come up already in the comments, and many others have addressed the point in response to Brubeck’s objections to the post.

    I would say that I’ve come to appreciate the position that, when discussing the contemporary left, a certain amount of hyperbole and generalization is warranted on the grounds that we should know that they aren’t going to abandon their use of Alinskyite tactics and means of argumentation. So if we don’t respond forcefully and call them on what they’re doing, they’re going to keep doing it.

    With regard to the one example you cited, though, I would acknowledge that Hawkins could have chosen many more and better examples (of liberals not caring about the effectiveness of their policies) instead, but that doesn’t mean his point is invalid, only that he didn’t do a good job of arguing for it. I would say, though, that the point has resonance with anyone who has seen things like the failed Obama “stimulus” (which included that gem “cash for clunkers”) or Obamacare, or even the “immigration reform” legislation. The point has resonance with anyone who looks at a city like Chicago which has a high crime and murder rate along with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

    Comment by Kurt — July 15, 2013 @ 4:52 pm - July 15, 2013

  8. I read the article that you based your post on, as you suggested your readers do, and I agree–it is quite hyperbolic. But what I don’t get is that you appear to be enamoured with an “article” that shows the very rhetorical and argumentative excesses of which you disapprove in those on the Left Wing.

    Yup.

    Because the only thing you respect and will respond to, Passing By, is the screaming hate rhetoric that spews out of the mouth of your leftist owners.

    And since you and your fellow leftists respect only lies, slander, hypocrisy, and violence, we fully intend to use the same against you.

    Yes, we do know better. But you don’t respond to “better”. You and your fellow leftists are malicious and destructive children, brats who want what they want when they want it and are going to verbally and physically attack its parents, teachers, and supervisors until they get it.

    You had your chance to act like a civilized human being and curb your howler monkeys. You instead chose to harangue us about NOT doing so while you clapped and cheered for your feces-flinging leaders Pelosi, Reid, and Obama calling conservatives racists, murderers, liars, and hypocrites.

    Since that’s how you want to play, that’s what you’re now going to get.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2013 @ 5:22 pm - July 15, 2013

  9. Idiot Cas, showing how it is a rational debater, unlike the rest of us who merely “state our beliefs”, arrives once again with its tiresome tu quoque rationalizations.
    It thinks it holds the moral and intellectual high ground, but when it hits ‘Say It!’ and launches yet another round of “Nuh uh, yooz guys do it, too!”, all I can see is a lump of steaming brown circling the bowl.

    Comment by Jman1961 — July 15, 2013 @ 6:07 pm - July 15, 2013

  10. Hi Kurt,
    “So if we don’t respond forcefully and call them on what they’re doing, they’re going to keep doing it.”

    As far as I can tell, that means that using the same tactics back–in the name of maintaining competitive equality is OK with you. Is that right? We get a good example of this kind of tactic from NDT at #58. Do you think this is a successful approach? I don’t.

    “I would say, though, that the point has resonance with anyone who has seen things like the failed Obama “stimulus”.”

    This sounds more like an article of faith than an argument, Kurt. You and I do not see the same events in the same way–so our views of the stimulus package differ. The point is that Hawkins did not choose those examples that you would like him to; rather he chose the examples he did to make his point–one of which I took issue with. If the examples he chooses are of “lesser” quality than otherwise does it have any impact on his argument? Even if you don’t think it matters, I think it does.

    I made two arguments–one concerning the willingness of those on the right to “respond forcefully and call them on what they’re doing” by using the tactics that they perceive the other side using; and the other on how these very tactics could be swung back your way to label conservatives (doing a little work with one example Hawkins uses)–unfairly–I might add, with the same brush that Hawkins uses in his article.

    Comment by Passing By — July 15, 2013 @ 6:27 pm - July 15, 2013

  11. Ditto #59

    Comment by Passing By — July 15, 2013 @ 6:27 pm - July 15, 2013

  12. Do you think this is a successful approach? I don’t.

    Comment by Passing By Execrable POS — July 15, 2013 @ 6:27 pm

    Oh, it’s very successful—–it’s worked so well for the left that we thought we might give it a try ourselves.
    And scum like you don’t hold up to it very well.

    The old saw is true: you can dish it out, but you sure as s**t can’t take it. And that’s why we’re going to keep serving it up to you: it will have you in retreat to the places that you and yours belong—under rocks and in the weeds, where you can’t do any more damage to this country.

    And if you find the written word so ominous and intimidating, just wait for the next lawless riot/uprising by you and your fellow herd animals when it occurs out here in the ‘real’ world.
    Those results are really going to upset you.

    Comment by Jman1961 — July 15, 2013 @ 6:54 pm - July 15, 2013

  13. Note the text book use of Alinsky tactics by Passing By @60.

    Rules for Radicals #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Thank you for being such a stunning example for us, Passing By.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — July 15, 2013 @ 8:55 pm - July 15, 2013

  14. As far as I can tell, that means that using the same tactics back–in the name of maintaining competitive equality is OK with you. Is that right? We get a good example of this kind of tactic from NDT at #58. Do you think this is a successful approach? I don’t.

    Actually, you do, Passing By, as is shown by your screaming and ranting that Romney was a murderer and Romney was a tax cheat.

    Neither of those are logical, rational, or truthful arguments, but you made them, voted based on them, and justified them as moral later by claiming that Obama should be allowed to do anything to win.

    So I think it’s high time conservatives started playing the game. You and your Obama Party block voter IDs so you can vote multiple times and in multiple locations; conservatives need to do the same, and more of it.

    You and your Obama Party make false claims of rape to slander conservatives; conservatives need to make claims of the same and worse to slander and destroy liberals’ reputations.

    You and your Obama Party leak confidential government information, i.e. Joe the Plumber, NOM, and so forth, to harass and harm your political enemies; conservatives in government should leak even more and more regularly.

    You and your Lois Lerner openly brag about weaponizing and using IRS letters to coerce and punish conservatives; conservatives should weaponize all state and local governments they control and harass the living sh*t out of every Obama Party member and voter.

    Do you understand this, blathering idiot Passing By? You wanted a war, you got one. You want lawlessness, you’ll get it. And you can scream and b*tch and cry and whine about why conservatives shouldn’t do any of those things, but as long as you and your pathetic sick liberal friends continue to do it, we will punch back twice as hard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2013 @ 9:54 pm - July 15, 2013

  15. Hi Bastiat Fan,
    “Thank you for being such a stunning example for us, Passing By.”
    As long as you can see that this is an illness shared by those on the right, no worries.

    Comment by Passing By — July 15, 2013 @ 11:19 pm - July 15, 2013

  16. As long as you can see that this is an illness shared by those on the right, no worries.

    Comment by Passing By The Worthless ‘It’ of GayPatriot — July 15, 2013 @ 11:19 pm

    You got the first part right, scumbag—you are ill.

    The second part—wrong as usual.

    Comment by Jman1961 — July 15, 2013 @ 11:38 pm - July 15, 2013

  17. […] From the comments: What we must acknowledge about the left […]

    Pingback by Tuesday thoughts and news | Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots — July 16, 2013 @ 3:47 am - July 16, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.